--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > I thought Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu? > > This guy really can say whatever he wants and you guys > just swallow it hook, link, sinker and rod, don't you?
That's one of the weirdest fantasies you've come up with so far, and that's saying something. Exactly where do you find us swallowing everything Mr. Magoo says?? He's a nice guy, but he has a bunch of rather strange ideas--*especially* strange to TMers--mixed in with otherwise good insights (such as that Krishna is promoting war in the Gita, for example). ----------------------------------------------------- --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > It may be very foolhardy to stick my neck out like this, as > without meaning to the words I use might be more offensive > to one person or another, but my motive is to encourage more > people to start focusing on the nobler aspects of the > individuals involved, whilst recognising that this > unfortunate situation is a hard one to resolve. Many thanks for posting this. I have only one disagreement. The "feuding" here wouldn't be that difficult to resolve, if only the folks with the power to regulate this forum had the desire and the will to do it. Every unpleasant personal exchange has to start with a single post that invites conflict. The trick is to identify those posts and sanction the posters. That would cut the exchanges off at the knees before they had a chance to develop. Once those with a penchant for starting fights realized it was no longer permissible to do so, the problem would be solved. --------------------------------------------------- --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > If you'd ever worked with addicts, you'd recog- > > nize the syndrome... > > > Well put Barry. Of course, that most of what Barry says here is wildly inaccurate shouldn't make any difference, right? ---------------------------------------------------- --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > As an aside, the tradition of the day was to > deliver a kid to an adult teacher to take care of > him. Letting him walk off was just as much an > aberration of parental responsibility as it is today. If there was anything they could have done about it, that is. If they'd handed him over to a teacher, and the kid didn't find him congenial, he'd most likely have walked away from the teacher. <snip> [I wrote:] > MMY, as I said, didn't imply any particular miracle > in that particular piece. In the other piece you > just quoted, he made a general pro forma reference, > pretty much de rigeur for a realized Indian master. > > When you hear someone introduce a candidate for > office as "The next president of the United States," > and the candidate then loses the election, do you > then say to yourself, "That scoundrel who introduced > the candidate before the election was lying"? > > I'm not sure where you got the idea about how > realized people get introduced, ever been to India? No, but I've read plenty of testimonials about purportedly realized teachers. Ever seen another supposedly realized > guy get introduced? This is a made up perspective. > It is just as likely that mentioning Sidhis is just > as tacky for religious people in India as here. > Remember he was representing a high formal office. I should think that would make claims for siddhis-- especially such siddhis as omniscience--even more appropriate. > My Indian friends here view sidhis claims as > ludicrously as we view the healing claims of > televangelists. I wouldn't doubt it, but isn't that a bit of a self-selected sample? How likely is it that Indians who took such claims for granted would be those you would make friends with in the first place? Also, this promotion of Guru Dev took place decades earlier than your sojourns in India, not that long after India won its independence from the British. It's not impossible that modern skepticism about such things was a lot less common back then. > The closer example would be Benny Hin's claims of > curing cancer being met with the appropriate skepticism. > Claiming unproven miracles to market spirituality is > crass and deserves to be ridiculed. That may be, but the issue here is whether MMY actually made such claims, as opposed to a pro forma statement, as I said, about unspecified abilities. <snip> > Your example about the candidate has nothing to do with > this. MMY is not claiming what he will become in the > future, he is claiming it is true now. It isn't a perfect analogy, but it makes the point. It's the same type of pro forma claim. It's expected, a formula. If the candidate weren't introduced that way, you'd wonder why not. Claiming that a > person is God's gift to India is exaggeration for effect. > Claiming miracles to influence superstitions people > is MMY being P.T. Barnum. But *he didn't claim any miracles*, Curtis. He made a generalized claim about unspecified abilities. In India, that would be equivalent to claiming George Bush was appointed by God to lead the nation. An awful lot of people believed that (fewer now, but only because Bush has messed up so badly--he may be the only person left who still believes it). It was exaggeration for effect (assuming MMY didn't actually believe it--for pete's sake, some TMers believe MMY himself can do "miracles"). > > I'm gunna go with the assumption that the young, > > endlessly ambitious MMY promoted the story to make > > GD look like a the rock star of yogis. > > Yeah, very scientific of you to make this > assumption for which there is no evidence. > > The epistemology in the scientific method is not > the right proof system for historical opinions. Not a matter of "proof" but of the sort of rigorous thinking required in science. > Here consistency of behavior carries > more weight since we lack clear evidence. MMY is a > known exaggerator and has promised non existent > miracles as recently as his presentation of the > sidhis. *So far* nonexistent. On what basis are you so sure that MMY has never believed they would take place eventually? > is no big jump to say that the writer of the PR > puff piece might be making up miracle stories to > increase hype. BUT HE DIDN'T MAKE UP ANY MIRACLE STORIES, Curtis. That's a story *you* made up. > Your thinking is so very rigid when it suits > your purposes, and so very flexible when that > works better for you. > > Agreed. It has taken me years of self development > to achieve this. And you're *proud* of insisting on the evidence when it confirms your beliefs and ignoring it when it doesn't?? > > BTW what is the SCI view on the mechanics of penances > > in gaining magical powers? > > Non sequitur. > > It was a secondary point I was bringing up. MMY is > claiming that Guru Dev did penances to achieve magical > powers. More than one way to skin a cat, perhaps. > I appreciate the discussion. Thanks. And I note you're *still* choosing to ignore these points: > And I note you chose to ignore these points: > > > > It's perfectly plausible that Guru Dev had a > > > source of funds other than donations from > > > disciples and visitors--even, perhaps, his own > > > inheritance, as Marek suggested; or some major > > > behind-the-scenes donors who weren't "disciples" > > > strictly speaking. > <snip> > > > In a publicity piece like this, MMY isn't going > > > to go into the intricacies of funding the math; > > > all he's trying to do is encourage people to > > > come hear Guru Dev, including poor people who > > > might not otherwise attend because they > > > couldn't afford the donation they assumed would > > > be expected of them.
